February 16, 2004

MASS DECEPTION COMMITTED

“We have lived through, been part of, party to, one of the greatest acts of mass deception in history,” writes Phillip Adams in his latest column, apparently referring to anybody who read it. Professor Bunyip once again exposes the hopelessly maladroit Adams; please read his entire post, an abbreviated version of which follows:

Adams, as he is prone to do, borrows from The New York Review of Books, but this time with a brilliant twist. To begin, let’s review George W. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech:

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

And so on, with Bush repeatedly providing sourced claims of WMD not accounted for by Saddam. These are crucial points to watch as Bush’s claims slowly migrate to Phillip’s column.

First, however, they are compressed by the NYRoB’s Thomas Powers, in a piece published last December:

Many of these claims were also cited by President Bush in his State of the Union message to Congress last January with additional hard detail — Iraq might have 500 tons of chemical weapons, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 30,000 prohibited bombs and warheads.

Now things get interesting. Adams, in a lapse astonishing even by his standards, takes that paragraph and attributes it to George W. Bush -- and, additionally, changes “might have” to “has”:

Here’s an extract from Bush’s State of the Union message, January 2003: "Iraq has 500 tonnes of chemical weapons, 25,000 litres of anthrax, 38,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 30,000 prohibited bombs and warheads ... ”

That isn’t an extract from Bush’s speech. Adams has made it up. Once again:

Bush: “Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials.

“The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material.”

UPDATE. It gets worse. Reader Hugh W. has checked the other quotes in the Adams piece and turned up the following, to which I've added a few lines myself:

In Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, he said:

Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent.

Adams, relying on the NYRoB’s account, edits this down to "... Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent." Thus, Powell's presentation of an estimate is turned into an assertion of fact.

Adams then quotes Powell as saying: "... Iraq retains a covert force of up to a few dozen scud-variant ballistic missiles". The actual words spoken were:

While inspectors destroyed most of the prohibited ballistic missiles, numerous intelligence reports over the past decade, from sources inside Iraq, indicate that Saddam Hussein retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud variant ballistic missiles.

Here, Adams has not only removed the ambiguity and the statement of sources which were in the actual remarks, he has changed the words "Saddam Hussein" to "Iraq" for no apparent reason.

The next section of the quote ("... Iraq has illegally imported 380 SA2 rocket engines") was originally "UNMOVIC has also reported that Iraq has illegally important 380 SA-2 rocket engines." A claim carefully attributed by Powell to a UN agency has become another out-of-context assertion, again through Adams relying on the NYRoB as his primary source.

And what about this alleged Paul Wolfowitz quote? Adams claims he said:

The CIA has collected solid facts about a decade of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa’ida, facts about training of al-Qa’ida people ...

Wolfowitz never used the phrase "solid facts". Adams has again misplaced the words of NYRoB writer Powers:

Wolfowitz went on to claim that the CIA had collected solid "facts about a decade of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, facts about training of al-Qaeda people, including in chemical and biological weapons ..."

So you weigh all of those things, and these facts that we have and the facts that are in the George Tenet letter, or facts about a decade of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, facts about Iraqi training of al Qaeda people, including in chemical and biological weapons, and facts about Iraq providing sanctuary for al Qaeda people, including senior al Qaeda people, including in Baghdad.

In the following NYRoB extract, Powers uses the phrase "it could be worse than we think" in seeking the meaning of a CIA claim:

In a bow to candor the agency specified just how much confidence it had in its "Key Judgments"—high confidence in some, moderate to low in others. It had high confidence in four—that Iraq "is continuing, and in some areas expanding," its programs for WMD; that "we are not detecting portions of these weapons programs," meaning it could be worse than we think; that Iraq "possesses...chemical and biological weapons"; and that Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in a year if it had fissionable material. The agency expressed low confidence in its ability to know when or if Saddam Hussein would use WMD or provide weapons to al-Qaeda.

After getting the Adams treatment, those words are now in the CIA’s mouth:

The CIA National Intelligence Estimate was less emphatic, admitting it didn’t know everything. But this didn’t matter because what it didn’t know only intensified the problem: "Iraq is continuing and in some areas expanding its programs for WMDs; that we are not detecting portions of these weapons programs means it could be worse than we think; Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in a year if it had fissionable material."

Got your excuses ready, Phillip?

Posted by Tim Blair at February 16, 2004 03:22 AM

Comments

Why would they fire him if they agree with him? Hell, Maureen Dowd didn't get fired: she's been deified by the Left. What's wrong a little "editing for clarity" if it fits the "Bush lied" meme?

Has anyone thought that maybe the UN weapons inspectors were lying to preserve their jobs? What type of perks do weapons inspectors get? And isn't it the nature of beauracracies to be self-perpetuating?
Not that I'm upset about the removal of Saddam. Shoud've happend years ago, but better late than never.

Thank you for another great Philip Adams column! The devastating quotes, in President Bush's own words from the State Of The Union Address no less, will serve as endless fodder for when my right-wing "friends" blather on and on about UN resolutions, sanctions, and other "issues." I only wish Adams had mentioned Bush's praise of Halliburton in the same speech.

Is it your appointed task each week to donounce Philip Adams? If he's such a dinosaur, so ill informed, so ignored and irrelevant, why do you waste your breath? Are you just jealous that it should be you not him with so many column inces each week? Must be three times the size of your cut and paste stitch-ups in the Bulletin.

Is someone paying you to bore us with an Adam's antidote every monday? Are you really travelling that poorly, despite the Geelong Grammar lifelong ladder of opportunity?

Like most of your arguments the one you present above is completely illogical. Adams should be attacked constantly, as should all lying lefty op-ed writers. The point is that Adams is so typical of the left: all piss and wind and no intellectual rigour whatsoever.

Jealousy has nothing to with the need to show up Adams and his ilk as the mendacious fools that they are.

The real jealousy in public life at the moment is that of the typical lefty who is pea-green with envy at the fact that the current US administration has actually had the courage to DO something and not just talk at endless conferences as the left would have done if we had been unfortunate enough to have them in power.

This isn't just a problem with a single quote in that article. I checked, and just about every one of the "quotes" in this article is a similar fabrication, with Adams either inserting words which were never there (eg Wolfowitz never said "solid facts) or editing out words which really were there in order to change the meaning ("A missile brigade outside Baghdad did X" became "...Baghdad did X". Maureen would be proud.) And then there are a few quotes which have been fucked around for no good reason at all - Adams changed the order of the words around in part of the Powell "quote" without changing the meaning at all - I think he just did it for the hell of it.

This article is a masterpiece of misquoting! It's fun to google for the original quotes and try to match them up to what Phil says.

Why won't you cover the facts on AWOL's documented case of mass deception, Tim?
There are some more details for the story when you get around to it here...http://www.memphisflyer.com/content.asp?ID=2834&onthefly=1

What about the "45 minute" lie Rummie can't even remember his President spinning?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20
020926-19.html

Nemesis said...
Did they say the word "imminent"? It appears not. (Notwithstanding the 45 MINUTES debacle)

But did they create a sense of imminence? Yep. You betcha.

Did Bush and gang tell lies about Iraq's WMD. Of course they did. You all know it, and the rest of this argument is just playing semantics. It is a red herring. Or maybe a plastic turkey.

Not only did the Bush Administration say that Iraq was not an imminent threat, but Pres. Bush himself said he would not wait until that threat was imminent.

As well, the "45 minute" claim was not a claim that an attack was imminent, but simply an estimate on how long it would take for the arming of a SCUD like missile with a chemical or biological warhead.

Any sense created that an attack by Iraq was imminent was merely a fabrication of your own imagination. At no time whatsoever did the Bush Administration or 10 Downing Street ever suggest, imply or hint that Iraq was an imminent threat.

And if you believe that Bush et al told lies about Iraqs weapons capabilities, does that too mean the UN, Russians, Germans, French and Chinese also lied?

Just admit you hate George W. Bush and save me the time of proving you wrong.

"Is someone paying you to bore us with an Adam's antidote every monday?"

Seems that people who *are* being paid to watch the media have not done their jobs. Adams and all other 'journalists' SHOULD be held accountable for getting their facts straight. If they misquote, there should be a retraction. Has a retraction been published yet?

It's necessary for bloggers to point out the lies our various media publish as truths. The bloggers do it because they love the truth, not because they are getting money for it.

If the 'journalists' would stop lying, get their facts correct, and admit mistakes, bloggers wouldn't need to point out their errors.

I don't include all journalists in with the subset of 'journalists' who lie, or are just incompetent. There are journalists who want to tell an accurate story and quote correctly.

It is interesting that so many readers regard the fabrication of quotes by an influential journalist as inoffensive, indeed unremarkable.

But let's not rush to criticize; instead, let's try to understand. Faced with a gap between the facts and what they think should be the facts, some people will always shrug--and choose the latter. For them, mendacity is commendable and "sexing up" is admirable. After all, since at least the 1930s, such intellectual gimcrackery is all that has held the leftwing worldview together.

Like a ramshackle carnival ride, LeftThink continues to whirl round and round, powered by the eternally renewable fuels of theory and dogmatism. But it can do so only by staying well clear of the brutal and bumpy "facts on the ground." Should it ever collide with these, the whole contraption would simply fall to bits.

Interesting how it seems the only people who've been shown beyond any doubt to be lying (ie: knowingly and deliberately making false statements) are those who are themselves accusing Bush, Blair and Howard of lying. First Gilligan, then Dowd, now Adams.

Then of course there was Andrew Wilkie, who in late 2003 told a Senate committee "The Prime Minister lied to the Australian people when he said XYZ", only to have Senator Robert Ray (ie: a political opponent of the Prime Minister) point out that the Prime Minister never actually said "XYZ".

PS: Note that I've used "XYZ" because I can't recall the precise wording of Wilkie's false accusation, and unlike Gilligan, Dowd, Adams , don't feel the need to invent other people's quotes to make my case.

Well once more we have seen Media Watch come and go for another week without a single word about the Phat Phuck himself. Must be fun to spend an entire week researching all the Conservative Correspondants to find one you can bag for 15 minutes and get paid for it.

The entire text of what Sincerity Slips keeps going on and on about: "The security of our country is the commitment of both political parties, and the responsibility of both elected branches of government."

Yup. That's completely true.

"Elected officials are working for a strong Congressional resolution that sends a clear message: UN Security Council demands must be followed and the Iraqi dictator must be disarmed. These requirements will be met, or they will be enforced."

Yup. Making it all legal and stuff. Following up the UN's own damn resolutions about Saddam. Absolutely true.

"The danger is grave and growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons and is rebuilding facilities to make more. It could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb -- and, with fissile material, could build one within a year."

"Iraq's regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups -- there are al-Qaida terrorists inside Iraq. The regime also practices the rape of women and the torture of dissenters and their children as methods of intimidation."

Absolutely all true.

"The President has made it clear: we refuse to live in a future of fear. We are determined to build a future of security and peace for the world."

Also all true, all blindingly obvious and absofuckinglutely the desired outcome except to a fucking MORON like Sincerity Slips, who, like a tiny terrier, fastens his pointy little teeth into one fucking pretend-issue and proceeds to growl and bark and shake said issue around until he tires himself out and pees on the carpet.

Wish I had a rolled-up newspaper with your name on it, Sincerity Slips.

Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and
implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore
international peace and security in the area."

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991

Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.

Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its
illegal invasion of Kuwait.

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering
harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological
weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and
all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."

Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons
or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or
manufacturing facilities.

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering
harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a
range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production
facilities."

Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass
destruction.

Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.

Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the
elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's
nuclear weapons program.

Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations
to operate in Iraq.

Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and
others.

Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991

"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of
which threaten international peace and security."

Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.

Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations
to those in need of assistance.

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991

"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.

"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council
deems Iraq in full compliance.

Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its
weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.

"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions,
including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN
inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.

Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.

Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its
people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

Additional UN Security Council Statements
In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security
Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN
Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The
list of statements includes:

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 1992

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 1992

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 1992

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 1992

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1992

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 1992

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 1993

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 1993

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1993

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 1994

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 1996

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 1996

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 1997

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 1997

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 1997

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 1997

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 1998

There are 12+ year of UNSC resolutions that say Iraq was a threat, but your words suggest that all these resolutions are based on lies. The facts are not on your side, which consequently makes YOU the liar - not George Walker Bush.
Posted by: Dwayne at February 17, 2004 at 09:09 AM

France, Russia, and China didn't go to war because Saddam was paying them off in his "oil for palaces/influence" fund. Why would they give up on a good deal like that?

Dwayne, good summary. Sort neat to see it all laid out like that. You should also publish the list of US democrats and world leader condemning Saddam and his cronies. Intersting that the words are almost the same.

Damn, Dwayne -- uselful comment, but it nearly broke the post. (Resaving it seemed to solve the problem. Hey, it could have been this wonky new browser I'm using -- Mozilla Foxfire -- so don't get upset. Still, be gentle!)

I'm just saying that they are trying VERY HARD to distract everyone from any issue raised in this blog by running through the comments with their pants pulled down and BUSH LIED painted in red letters on their rumps, and you keep bringing us back to the here and now by pointing out the facts.

I apologize - if I read you correctly, you gain a certain amount of enjoyment toying with these trolls. Well, if true, I must then apologize more profusely, because I must admit I cannot help nor stop myself. I feel an uncontrollable need to prove the trolls wrong. It's a compulsion; dare I say addiction; an obsession even. I cannot help himself.

Trolls are amuzing. The thing is, all their arguments have been debunkend in previous posts. They just move to a new post, bringing the same old stuff and hope a new reader is watching. Occasionlly they find new "evidence" for their "LIED" and "MISLEAD" campaings, but it is increasingly obscur and irrelevant. Check out the archives and dive into some post with lots of comments.

Alby, damn good posting - the best comment I have read on the Left ever! Much appreciated. In particular, I have never understood what motivates Phillip Adams - he is no fool. But I fear his loathing of John Howard has distorted his reasoning, and I do wish 'The Australian' would dispense with his services. No hope of that of course, but one can dream!